Reported By:
| Edited By: Ramesh Ramachandran |Source: DNA |Updated: May 08, 2016, 07:20 AM IST
Yang Jianli is a Harvard Fellow and the president of Initiatives for China, a Washington-based NGO, which organised a conference in India for the first time to which some of the ethnic and religious minorities of China were invited. Yang, a Chinese citizen with a permanent resident status in the US, tells WION/dna correspondent Ramesh Ramachandran in a May 4 interview in New Delhi that a repeat of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, which he participated in, is possible, if public disenchantment with the Chinese government's policies grows. He also says there is an appreciation in New Delhi that advancing human rights and democracy in China is in the national interest of India. Excerpts:
I am disappointed, but I understand that India is trying to find a balance between Chinese pressure and hosting the conference. One can't overlook the fact that India allowed the conference to be held without any incident. The criticism that the Modi government is weak is not fair. The policy makers and the Modi government understand that advancing human rights and democracy in China is in the national interest of India.
Dolkun Isa is a peaceful person. He is not a terrorist. He is a citizen of Germany, which is a strong democracy. He travels freely to many countries, including the US. Any country can send a list (of persons it designates as terrorists) to Interpol but it does not mean that every country should accept it. India reacted to pressure from China, which is understandable, but perhaps it overreacted. However, in the end India allowed us to hold the conference, which is very positive. We don't accept violence in any form. Some Uyghurs may have engaged in some kind of violent attacks but those Uyghurs we work with are peaceful. We try to engage with some young people who have not abandoned violence. For example, some student leaders from Hong Kong were invited to the conference and spoken to about the principles of non-violence.
I can't say I am very happy with it, but I understand the concerns of the Indian government [vis-a-vis its] territorial dispute with China and threat of terrorism from Pakistan, which has a good relationship with China. India is a large democracy and a neighbour of China. I wish and hope that India will take a more proactive role in propagating the ideas of universal values such as democracy to China and also be more forthcoming in supporting us when it comes to visas.
Historically and contemporarily, the situation in Tibet is very complex. Three principles guide us to work with Tibet:
One, respect for the Tibetans' right to self-determination and that the future of Tibet should be decided by the Tibetans themselves;
two, we should be united to change China; and
three, we should achieve our goal with non-violence.
It is of course probable. Ever since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and the collapse of the erstwhile USSR, it has never been far from the Chinese leaders' mind. They have learnt from the experiences of dictators, be they right-wing or left-wing, to prevent people from coming together, to control society. With such high degree of control in China, people may not be able to do much but I don't think they will continue this way for very long. Social unrest, people's resentment against the government, sickening pollution, glaring corruption, public disgust with information control, blatantly unjust detentions...all these things I think will get people to try to do something, to demand change. Eventually, I don't think the Chinese government will be able to control such a society for ever, not for a long time. So 1989 is very much possible.
I was already disenchanted with the regime and the Communist party before the students' movement broke out in the spring of 1989.
The Indian government is leaning towards the US more than before. It is a good sign. The US is reflecting on its decades-old China policy. China might be the second largest economy in the world but in terms of democracy it remains at the bottom. The US thought trade with China will bring about prosperity and democracy but it didn't happen. What went wrong? Decades of economic prosperity saw the Chinese middle class join the ruling elite class, but the economic and political elites are beginning to turn their back on President Xi Jinping. I think, in five or 10 years, China must have some big opportunity to change and I really hope that India, the US and other democracies will not lose the opportunity to help the Chinese people to change China. When China becomes democratic, its government will become more responsible, more predictable. Therefore, in terms of security, a lot of countries such as India, the US, Japan and the Philippines will become better off for sure.
A personality cult around President Xi has met with strong resistance within the party. His days would not be so easy. Four factors need to be present at the same time for real change in China:
a general dissatisfaction with the government;
a viable democratic opposition, which is not yet there;
a power struggle or cracks within the leadership (cracks will not be meaningful until some factions have different political views from others); and
international recognition and support for the movement for change when it happens.
We had almost achieved a revolution in 1989 but the international community did not recognise or intervene or give support to it.
Republic or Democrat, the US can be expected to have a different foreign policy towards China. Whoever wins, the US will take a stronger position on security, trade and human rights. Compartmentalisation of policies did not work in the interest of the US. There is a need for an integrated approach.
